Anonymous wrote:Statistically it is wrong to to assign a numerical store to its school because the margin of error of its data sources is greater than the difference of the scores.
3. Top tier (16 - 30): These schools are equals in terms of prestige and rankings -- UVA, Michigan, UCLA, Cal, CMU, Emory, Georgetown, NYU, USC, Georgia Tech ...
4. Wake Forest, W&M ...
Why is Cornell in tier two?
When I encounter graduates, e.g. for hiring, I think of them something like this:
1A) Harvard, Stanford, MIT (these are the ones that will generally be chosen over the ones below, they are the top of the top)
1B) Yale, Princeton, Caltech (will generally be chosen over the ones below but were perhaps not accepted to 1A)
2A) Columbia, Penn, Duke, Chicago, Brown, Dartmouth, Williams, Amherst, Pomona
2B) Northwestern, Rice, Cornell, WashU
3) Vanderbilt, Georgetown, Cal, Michigan, UCLA, NYU, USC, Notre Dame, Emory, UVA, UNC, Boston College, W&M, Wake, etc and a number of LACs (I'm just not going to distinguish much between graduates of these schools for suspected competence or intelligence.
You must be pretty old, or have a strong NE bias, because the students getting into Amherst and Pomona, arent getting, Rice, Vandy, ND, Emory, and Gtown. So you missing out on smarter students because of old New England prestige.
Gosh you are so very wrong. Extremely similar stats and overall acceptance rates, but totally different types of schools. However, comparatively, if you want an LAC, Amherst and Pomona are the Yale and Stanford of that group, respectively.
The students at all those schools will be top 5%ers of similar (and high) quality. But with LACs being so small and 40% of LAC seats going to athletes (in ED round), IMHO Amherst is a harder admit than Georgetown etc for the same quality student, especially in RD.
Arguing for a difference though, as you have, is very odd, and I ask you reveal your intention or bias.
I personally think many on DC are anti southern schools, however I do not have a bias I posted my tier list already.
Tier 4- Wake, William& M, Rochester, Boston College, Davidson etc
Columbia and UChicago belong with HYPSM. Location gives Columbia a boost, while campus culture ( Life of the Mind) gives UChicago a boost. Caltech may be as good as those schools, however, because it is very niche and the things it does well, MIT does better it gets knocked down a bit. Teir 2 has the weaker ivy's and Duke and NW--ie strong ivy-like privates. Just because Williams and Amherst are the "Ivy's of the LAC's" doesn't mean they belong in this group. Just like UC Berkely and UCLA don't belong in this group despite being "Public Ivy's".
3A has the schools that are at the top of the LAC group and the schools typically ranked 14-22 ish. This group is elite while not being academic juggernauts. They have great academics and ridiculously difficult to get into. It has the top LAC's Top 2 Publics and the top southern and midwest schools. Some other poster lumped Emory and Vandy in with schools like Boston College and that shows how biased that person is, The Deans at BC would even say that. Gtown gets a boost because of history, and CMU gets a boost due to its prowess in tech.
3B has the other top privates that are a step below the privates listed in 3A. It also has the rest of the top 5 publics. Then theirs T4 where I could add Tulane and the rest of the top 50 colleges.
If Georgetown is such an old, great school, why does it have a low alumni giving rate and and endowment of $1.82B for nearly 18,000 students? That is lower than the endowment of George Washington. Notre Dame has 12X the endowment per student. Washington and Lee has nearly 10X. Williams 13.5X.
Where should Georgetown go then? With Wake Forest and BC?
Sure as hell doesn't go with Williams, etc.
It does,... you guys are seriously overrating Williams and Amherst. They aren't getting the Ivy student except for Cornell and Brown. But so are Emory and Vandy thus they are the same level.
Lol you are so ignorant. You clearly have no experience with those schools.
Anonymous wrote:How is W&M ranked the same as Case Western, BU, and Brandeis and below Davis, Irvine, UCSD, and University of ... Rochester??
It's the new Pell Grant inclusion in the USNWR rankings--they don't have that many Pell grant recipients so they are kind of dinged there. And a couple of other odd bits that have little to do with quality of an institution/education IMO.
Anonymous wrote:How is W&M ranked the same as Case Western, BU, and Brandeis and below Davis, Irvine, UCSD, and University of ... Rochester??
It's the new Pell Grant inclusion in the USNWR rankings--they don't have that many Pell grant recipients so they are kind of dinged there. And a couple of other odd bits that have little to do with quality of an institution/education IMO.
Too few Pell Grant recipients. (But it is one of the top graduation rates for Pell Grant recipients.) USNWR ratings where W&M ranks very high, undergraduate teaching (ranked 5) and undergraduate research programs (ranked 13) don't count toward the national university ranking. USNWR also removed the counselor ranking, where W&M had done well.
Anonymous wrote:How is W&M ranked the same as Case Western, BU, and Brandeis and below Davis, Irvine, UCSD, and University of ... Rochester??
It's the new Pell Grant inclusion in the USNWR rankings--they don't have that many Pell grant recipients so they are kind of dinged there. And a couple of other odd bits that have little to do with quality of an institution/education IMO.
Too few Pell Grant recipients. (But it is one of the top graduation rates for Pell Grant recipients.) USNWR ratings where W&M ranks very high, undergraduate teaching (ranked 5) and undergraduate research programs (ranked 13) don't count toward the national university ranking. USNWR also removed the counselor ranking, where W&M had done well.
If W&M had a medical school it would probably help with the financial resources ranking. That is where the money is. I don't really see that that would actually benefit undergraduate study, though.
Anonymous wrote:Statistically it is wrong to to assign a numerical store to its school because the margin of error of its data sources is greater than the difference of the scores.
3. Top tier (16 - 30): These schools are equals in terms of prestige and rankings -- UVA, Michigan, UCLA, Cal, CMU, Emory, Georgetown, NYU, USC, Georgia Tech ...
4. Wake Forest, W&M ...
Why is Cornell in tier two?
When I encounter graduates, e.g. for hiring, I think of them something like this:
1A) Harvard, Stanford, MIT (these are the ones that will generally be chosen over the ones below, they are the top of the top)
1B) Yale, Princeton, Caltech (will generally be chosen over the ones below but were perhaps not accepted to 1A)
2A) Columbia, Penn, Duke, Chicago, Brown, Dartmouth, Williams, Amherst, Pomona
2B) Northwestern, Rice, Cornell, WashU
3) Vanderbilt, Georgetown, Cal, Michigan, UCLA, NYU, USC, Notre Dame, Emory, UVA, UNC, Boston College, W&M, Wake, etc and a number of LACs (I'm just not going to distinguish much between graduates of these schools for suspected competence or intelligence.
You must be pretty old, or have a strong NE bias, because the students getting into Amherst and Pomona, arent getting, Rice, Vandy, ND, Emory, and Gtown. So you missing out on smarter students because of old New England prestige.
Gosh you are so very wrong. Extremely similar stats and overall acceptance rates, but totally different types of schools. However, comparatively, if you want an LAC, Amherst and Pomona are the Yale and Stanford of that group, respectively.
The students at all those schools will be top 5%ers of similar (and high) quality. But with LACs being so small and 40% of LAC seats going to athletes (in ED round), IMHO Amherst is a harder admit than Georgetown etc for the same quality student, especially in RD.
Arguing for a difference though, as you have, is very odd, and I ask you reveal your intention or bias.
I personally think many on DC are anti southern schools, however I do not have a bias I posted my tier list already.
Tier 4- Wake, William& M, Rochester, Boston College, Davidson etc
Columbia and UChicago belong with HYPSM. Location gives Columbia a boost, while campus culture ( Life of the Mind) gives UChicago a boost. Caltech may be as good as those schools, however, because it is very niche and the things it does well, MIT does better it gets knocked down a bit. Teir 2 has the weaker ivy's and Duke and NW--ie strong ivy-like privates. Just because Williams and Amherst are the "Ivy's of the LAC's" doesn't mean they belong in this group. Just like UC Berkely and UCLA don't belong in this group despite being "Public Ivy's".
3A has the schools that are at the top of the LAC group and the schools typically ranked 14-22 ish. This group is elite while not being academic juggernauts. They have great academics and ridiculously difficult to get into. It has the top LAC's Top 2 Publics and the top southern and midwest schools. Some other poster lumped Emory and Vandy in with schools like Boston College and that shows how biased that person is, The Deans at BC would even say that. Gtown gets a boost because of history, and CMU gets a boost due to its prowess in tech.
3B has the other top privates that are a step below the privates listed in 3A. It also has the rest of the top 5 publics. Then theirs T4 where I could add Tulane and the rest of the top 50 colleges.
If Georgetown is such an old, great school, why does it have a low alumni giving rate and and endowment of $1.82B for nearly 18,000 students? That is lower than the endowment of George Washington. Notre Dame has 12X the endowment per student. Washington and Lee has nearly 10X. Williams 13.5X.
Where should Georgetown go then? With Wake Forest and BC?
For whatever it is worth, USNWR is the most influential ranking, and they placed Georgetown at 24 and Wake at 27. Is failing to draw a tier delineation between them really an LOL?
Real question: on average, if a kid is admitted to Georgetown and chooses to attend Wake instead, will they have demonstrably different outcomes than if they attended Georgetown? If so, is this limited to certain fields and majors? How about Georgetown and UVA?
I truly think Wake isn't as good as Gtown or UVA, US news doesn't get it right all the time. And frankly, we know the vast majority, over 70% , of Wake students aren't getting into Gtown.
Probably over 70% of Princeton students aren't getting in Harvard or Stanford, yet USNWR has Princeton #1 and has for a while. They clearly aren't ranking just preference.
Anonymous wrote:Statistically it is wrong to to assign a numerical store to its school because the margin of error of its data sources is greater than the difference of the scores.
3. Top tier (16 - 30): These schools are equals in terms of prestige and rankings -- UVA, Michigan, UCLA, Cal, CMU, Emory, Georgetown, NYU, USC, Georgia Tech ...
4. Wake Forest, W&M ...
Why is Cornell in tier two?
When I encounter graduates, e.g. for hiring, I think of them something like this:
1A) Harvard, Stanford, MIT (these are the ones that will generally be chosen over the ones below, they are the top of the top)
1B) Yale, Princeton, Caltech (will generally be chosen over the ones below but were perhaps not accepted to 1A)
2A) Columbia, Penn, Duke, Chicago, Brown, Dartmouth, Williams, Amherst, Pomona
2B) Northwestern, Rice, Cornell, WashU
3) Vanderbilt, Georgetown, Cal, Michigan, UCLA, NYU, USC, Notre Dame, Emory, UVA, UNC, Boston College, W&M, Wake, etc and a number of LACs (I'm just not going to distinguish much between graduates of these schools for suspected competence or intelligence.
You must be pretty old, or have a strong NE bias, because the students getting into Amherst and Pomona, arent getting, Rice, Vandy, ND, Emory, and Gtown. So you missing out on smarter students because of old New England prestige.
Gosh you are so very wrong. Extremely similar stats and overall acceptance rates, but totally different types of schools. However, comparatively, if you want an LAC, Amherst and Pomona are the Yale and Stanford of that group, respectively.
The students at all those schools will be top 5%ers of similar (and high) quality. But with LACs being so small and 40% of LAC seats going to athletes (in ED round), IMHO Amherst is a harder admit than Georgetown etc for the same quality student, especially in RD.
Arguing for a difference though, as you have, is very odd, and I ask you reveal your intention or bias.
I personally think many on DC are anti southern schools, however I do not have a bias I posted my tier list already.
Tier 4- Wake, William& M, Rochester, Boston College, Davidson etc
Columbia and UChicago belong with HYPSM. Location gives Columbia a boost, while campus culture ( Life of the Mind) gives UChicago a boost. Caltech may be as good as those schools, however, because it is very niche and the things it does well, MIT does better it gets knocked down a bit. Teir 2 has the weaker ivy's and Duke and NW--ie strong ivy-like privates. Just because Williams and Amherst are the "Ivy's of the LAC's" doesn't mean they belong in this group. Just like UC Berkely and UCLA don't belong in this group despite being "Public Ivy's".
3A has the schools that are at the top of the LAC group and the schools typically ranked 14-22 ish. This group is elite while not being academic juggernauts. They have great academics and ridiculously difficult to get into. It has the top LAC's Top 2 Publics and the top southern and midwest schools. Some other poster lumped Emory and Vandy in with schools like Boston College and that shows how biased that person is, The Deans at BC would even say that. Gtown gets a boost because of history, and CMU gets a boost due to its prowess in tech.
3B has the other top privates that are a step below the privates listed in 3A. It also has the rest of the top 5 publics. Then theirs T4 where I could add Tulane and the rest of the top 50 colleges.
If Georgetown is such an old, great school, why does it have a low alumni giving rate and and endowment of $1.82B for nearly 18,000 students? That is lower than the endowment of George Washington. Notre Dame has 12X the endowment per student. Washington and Lee has nearly 10X. Williams 13.5X.
Where should Georgetown go then? With Wake Forest and BC?
For whatever it is worth, USNWR is the most influential ranking, and they placed Georgetown at 24 and Wake at 27. Is failing to draw a tier delineation between them really an LOL?
Real question: on average, if a kid is admitted to Georgetown and chooses to attend Wake instead, will they have demonstrably different outcomes than if they attended Georgetown? If so, is this limited to certain fields and majors? How about Georgetown and UVA?
I truly think Wake isn't as good as Gtown or UVA, US news doesn't get it right all the time. And frankly, we know the vast majority, over 70% , of Wake students aren't getting into Gtown.
Probably over 70% of Princeton students aren't getting in Harvard or Stanford, yet USNWR has Princeton #1 and has for a while. They clearly aren't ranking just preference.
And plenty of Harvard students won't get into Princeton. When you remove hooks from the equation, it's all a roll of the dice.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
